Sylvanas didn’t ruin the Horde, Thrall Did...

[Razaron]

Alright blight at Lordaeon was winning maneuver and soldiers being out of position. Any tactician would sacrifice a couple troops to win the entire battle, if not the war.

She had to burn the tree, after Saurfang let Malfurion go, in order to achieve the effect needed, otherwise the campaign would have been in vain. Saurfang himself understood that she was right, in that moment, despite how much he hated her, for doing it.

Also the Night Elves were never her subjects to begin with so that entire argument is a bit silly.

If there was ever a post for a Sylvanas apologist, then you've just made it.

[Varodoc]

The Horde should just be dismantled and taken over by the Alliance, or perhaps Anduin could install Baine on the throne of Warchief, a gullible puppet that he can manipulate and twist into doing everything he wants. Clearly the stupid orcs and their primitive friends are not able to govern themselves, as Garrosh and Sylvanas prove. They do not deserve independence if they waste it by giving all the military power to blatantly evil warmongers.

[Super Dickmann]

I would actually agree with that, at least in hindsight - although the Barrens shares a lot in common with Durotar as concerns arable land, and Azshara itself labors under a supposedly cursed nature and may not be a place to settle in. The Old Horde also didn't wreck Draenor due to being too large to support, as the Old Horde didn't really create a new population center for the Orcs like Orgrimmar was envisioned. Fel magic was what wrecked the ecosystems of Draenor, accumulating more and more over time until the planet slowly and surely became a wasteland.

It's true that the Old Horde's sustainability was never checked since the land was already dying from fel magic and KJ's sabotage, but I don't believe it's too much of a leap to assume that a concentrated population would have more trouble sustaining itself on a hunter-gatherer style than several smaller, scattered ones, with the total numbers being the same. As for Azshara, I think that's mostly superstition as regards the ghosts, though I guess you could say the shamans would have issue with it. The Barrens though were massive, and while still not perfect, were still a lot more habitable than Durotar. It even had a bunch of farms there pre-Cata as I recall.

I think a bit too much is made of the penance thing, personally. I don't think that Thrall actually set out to punish the Orcs, but rather saw the choice of Durotar as a suitable reflection of the Orcish spirit as scarred, and something in need of cultivation and refinement. The goal was reclaim Durotar as the Orcs reclaimed their own heritage, using Shamanism to bring life to the land once more. Unfortunately Thrall allowed his own reign to be cut short due to his doubts about his leadership in light of the growing problems on Azeroth, so this dream isn't one that could be realized.

I heavily disagree with your point regarding seeing Durotar restored through Shamanism. Durotar wasn't the way it was because of a calamity, that was its natural state. Changing it with Shamanism to be more hospitable, while something I'd recommend, though maybe replacing it with arcane from the belves since that has less of a chance of pissing the spirits off than forcing them to give you what you want, is not what Thrall's MO was and there's no indication in his or Gorgonna's dialogue that it was intended to improve, rather that the orcs would have to get used to and adapt to the hardship rather than take the easy way of taking what they need.

So no, Saurfang's uninvolvement really isn't a plot point any more than Nazgrel's would've been (hence the comparison). Thrall presumably catches him up on the plight of the Horde as the two make haste to Orgrimmar at the opening of the Siege.

We know Saurfang was away from the Horde after Wrath, but I don't think we have any confirmation that was the case throughout Wrath and Cataclysm. And in any case, it does still mean that his role in dealing with Garrosh was minimal, despite his threats and later condemnation of him, which is what I was on about.

[Razaron]

Name one tyrannic like thing that Sylvanas has done without counting brainless Horde troops straight up running into the flying blight bombs without thinking twice, and minus those desolate council defecters. I'll wait.

Hey Raz, name something she's done just don't pick this... oh and don't pick that because you know that goes against my whole argument.

[Deleted]

Or I just know what tyrant means and I'm linking it to you proving you wrong.

Ironic, given that when challenged by me and other posters to support your case your "evidence" has had nothing to do with either definition.

Forcing the Horde go to war when there is many who didn't want to? It's why we get to choose if we want to side with Saurfang or Sylvanas in a future quest. The playerbase is spilt and a lot of horde players feel like they're doing stuff that they don't want to.

I guess you must have missed the part in A Good War where everybody cheered Saurfang's plan and not so much as a Grunt has spoken out about going to war since 3 whole months down the line. It's almost like the Horde are actually supporting her, gee...

Yup, it's totally stupid of me to highlight the fact that she's cruel which is a key attribute of a tyrannical leader. Sorry I brought it up and made you look silly.

An irrelevant point given that, as already explained, a partial fit to a definition is useless and proves nothing as to the weight of your argument. As I also already explained, cherry-picking part of a definition while ignoring the rest does not make the definition applicable. Why this is so hard to understand I have no idea...

Many Warcraft characters have been tyrants, why is this suddenly a bombshell moment for you?

That's right, many have been tyrants. But the fact that so many can be labelled so just because they are "cruel", and can therefore be generalised as a "Tyrant" by default by using your flawed logic only exposes the gaping flaws in your arguement (or whatever it is you're trying to prove)

I mean it's really rich you saying I'm picking and choosing, but you haven't defended Sylvanas at all. All you've said is she's not because I'm wrong. Really good argument there.

No, I've said she's not because your "proof" does not fit the literal definition and what apparent "proof" you do have does not even partially fit it. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you.

[tyrlaan]

Name one tyrannic like thing that Sylvanas has done without counting brainless Horde troops straight up running into the flying blight bombs without thinking twice, and minus those desolate council defecters. I'll wait.

Do you have a citation somewhere to prove its canon that the Horde troops knew blight was getting thrown and where such that they should have been smart enough to avoid it? As I saw it, no one except the Forsaken knew she was going to throw blight.

Note, I don't think Sylvanas is a tyrant, but she's pretty fucking evil. These don't have to go hand in hand.

[sighy]

If there was ever a post for a Sylvanas apologist, then you've just made it.

Calling me names doesn't change my statement.


I simply stated that she is not cruel to her subjects. In Lordaeon there was tactical reasoning to do what she did. And there was solid reasoning behind going for the war now rather than hope it doesn't happen later. Which given the information she had was uncertain, if you were optimistic.

Now i could quote A Good War, Before the Storm and in-game dialogue, but since you are unwilling to look at the information characters have available. Or any of the other factors playing into her choices i feel like i would be wasting my time. It's a shame that such severe things as "tyrant" are being diminished by ignorance.

[Grazrug]

Hey Raz, name something she's done just don't pick this... oh and don't pick that because you know that goes against my whole argument.

Because those have nothing to do with tyranny. First example is suicidal horde soldiers running straight into danger(even commenting on it, and apologizing for it after you saved them), secon on is Sylvanas rightfully getting rid of defecters who turned sides, after Calia told her so. Textbook definition of treason.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have a citation somewhere to prove its canon that the Horde troops knew blight was getting thrown and where such that they should have been smart enough to avoid it? As I saw it, no one except the Forsaken knew she was going to throw blight.

Note, I don't think Sylvanas is a tyrant, but she's pretty fucking evil. These don't have to go hand in hand.

Of course Sylvanas is one of the most evil tropes we have in this game. I never denied this.

[sighy]

The Horde should just be dismantled and taken over by the Alliance, or perhaps Anduin could install Baine on the throne of Warchief, a gullible puppet that he can manipulate and twist into doing everything he wants. Clearly the stupid orcs and their primitive friends are not able to govern themselves, as Garrosh and Sylvanas prove. They do not deserve independence if they waste it by giving all the military power to blatantly evil warmongers.

And people wonder why the Horde would fight that...

- - - Updated - - -

Of course Sylvanas is one of the most evil tropes we have in this game. I never denied this.

Textbook definition of Antihero.

[tyrlaan]

I simply stated that she is not cruel to her subjects. In Lordaeon there was tactical reasoning to do what she did. And there was solid reasoning behind going for the war now rather than hope it doesn't happen later. Which given the information she had was uncertain, if you were optimistic.

Aye, she's not tyrant, but she is clearly cruel to her subjects. Blighting your troops can surely be tactically sound, but that doesn't make it not cruel.

Of course Sylvanas is one of the most evil tropes we have in this game. I never denied this.

I appreciate that you agree with me on that, but I'm still curious where you are getting the information that the Horde troops only got blighted because they were idiots.

And people wonder why the Horde would fight that...

Please, don't feed the... (you know the rest)

[Grazrug]

And people wonder why the Horde would fight that...

- - - Updated - - -



Textbook definition of Antihero.

Her posts are always wild like that. Just ignore her.

[Tarba]

Horde troops blighted were rescued.

[Varodoc]

And people wonder why the Horde would fight that...

So be it. The Horde will be allowed to keep their independence, just make sure not to complain when one of their Warchiefs inevitably goes insane and drags the Horde down a darker path yet again.

It is not a surprise that Thrall, often revered and praised as the most civilized, elegant, wise and intelligent Orc in Warcraft, was raised and educated by a Human lord.

[Unholyground]

Sylvanas was necessary evil, no one else can resist old god corruption enough and in 8.2 will have the solution to her problem and Azeroths problem. She will capture N'Zoth in the empty Blade of the black empire and use that power to open a rift to the shadowlands at the end of the expansion.

[sam86]

without that mistake - and it was fatal - he would been a mary sue character
and current horde is usually described as Thrall's horde, he made it, and i love(d) it

[Tarba]

without that mistake - and it was fatal - he would been a mary sue character
and current horde is usually described as Thrall's horde, he made it, and i love(d) it

Which one?
Starting a worldwar?
Putting Garrosh on throne?
Starting a civil war?

[Grazrug]

Which one?
Starting a worldwar?
Putting Garrosh on throne?
Starting a civil war?

Garrosh startet the worldwar with bombing Theramore. Vol'jin got the civil war rolling. Only making Garrosh commander in chief is directly his fault. Nice try.

[Tarba]

Garrosh startet the worldwar with bombing Theramore. Vol'jin got the civil war rolling. Only making Garrosh commander in chief is directly his fault. Nice try.

Thrall started a worldwar with the help of Jaina.
Garrosh only continued that war.
Thrall killed Korkron who were doing the same things he asked them to do with the forsaken. The first act of the civil war.

[Razaron]

Ironic, given that when challenged by me and other posters to support your case your "evidence" has had nothing to do with either definition.

tyrannical
/tɪˈranɪk(ə)l,tʌɪˈranɪk(ə)l/Submit
adjective
exercising power in a cruel or arbitrary way.

Please explain to me how bombing your own troops, forcing the horde to do questionable actions and burning alive adults and children is not tyrannical?

She's exercising her power in cruel way, or does war and killing innocents just go straight over your head? I've given you an example, you're ignoring it saying it's nothing to do with the definition. On the contrary it's a perfect example.

I guess you must have missed the part in A Good War where everybody cheered Saurfang's plan and not so much as a Grunt has spoken out about going to war since 3 whole months down the line. It's almost like the Horde are actually supporting her, gee...

Has the Horde ever been more spilt since Garrosh? Ofcourse 100% of the Horde are right behind the Banshee Queen. Lets just ignore all the future quests that are ahead..

An irrelevant point given that, as already explained, a partial fit to a deinition is useless and proves nothing as to the weight of your argument. As I also already explained, cherry-picking part of a definition while ignoring the rest does not make the definition applicable. Why this is so hard to understand I have no idea...

This is coming from the person who didn't know a tyrant was cruel. To address your point, how can I cherry pick? I've got a definition, I've given you evidence and you dismiss it like some flat-earth imbecile confronted with NASA images.

That's right, many have been tyrants. But the fact that so many can be labelled so just because they are "cruel", and can therefore be generalised as a "Tyrant" by default by using your flawed logic only exposes the gaping flaws in your arguement (or whatever it is you're trying to prove)

I see where you're coming from, it's a shame I addressed other definitions that pin-point Sylvanas as a tyrant. You're just ignoring everything I say now like some blind fanboy.

No, I've said she's not because your "proof" does not fit the literal definition and what apparent "proof" you do have does not even partially fit it. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you.

You really need to take off your rose tinted Sylvanas glasses, far too many fanboys in here defending the un-defendable. There's nothing wrong with Sylvanas being a bad guy, a tyrant or whatever. It's the fact that you're ignoring everything in front of you just to paint a character you hold in high esteem as something she's not.

I mean lets take another definition,

A modern tyrant might be objectively defined by proven violation of international criminal law such as crimes against humanity.

This will be my last reply to you on this thread as your fanboyism is becoming rather tiresome. It's impossible to argue with someone like you who will object to the un-objectable, I mean you didn't even know cruelty was a part of a tyrants definition and you question me on my definitions. Hilarious!

I've shown you how she's oppressive, cruel to her own people. She's killed her troops, started wars and burned alive adults and children. Crimes against humanity. She's a tyrant you'll just have to learn to accept it when she falls even further from grace.

[Biomega]

oppressive
/əˈprɛsɪv/Submit
adjective
1.
inflicting harsh and authoritarian treatment.

You're missing the point. You just assume that it's easy to apply these words to Sylvanas' actions because they're so obvious and clear-cut. But they're not. Who's to judge what's "harsh and authoritarian"? Some people may find certain things she did harsh, others may find them justified. And being "authoritarian" is a whole spectrum of flavors, most of which are subject to interpretation.

The point is, you can't just go "well of course she's a tyrant, it's right there in the definition!" because that definition has a LOT of wriggle room.

My examples weren't meant to show others also did bad things, they were meant to show how varied the interpretations of certain actions can be, and how easily one falls prey to bias trying to sound objective. What one party calls "authoritarian", the other might call "strong-willed", for example; what one may call "arbitrary", another might call "justified". And so on.